Boardroom Politics
How is Boardroom Politics defined? Give an example of a current event which demonstrates Boardroom politics in action.
Boardroom politics is defined as a decision making by business elites and professionals but with important public consequences. According to Van Horn, Baumer & Gormley (2001) boardroom politics in the private decision making are literally made in corporate boardrooms; others are made at lower levels by corporate managers subject to constraints imposed by a board of directors. Boardroom politics are more hierarchical than cloakroom politics, more competitive than bureaucratic politics and more volatile than courtroom politics. Boardroom politics has become more visible and more controversial since the 1960s and still private (Van Horn,Baumer & Gormley 2001). Therefore boardroom politics does become controversial and continues to gain in the politic policy process. Its implementation is known both in public and private sectors that describes political process for the scope of conflict in a broader sense by examining the process to make comparisons by its use. The example from current events that demonstrates boardroom politics can be someone’s leaking to the press! An article from Christian and Timbers (2010 suggest that there is spying on in boardroom from colleagues at Hewlett Packard; leaked information to the press. According to Christian and Timbers (2010) “the exercise destroyed what little sense of common purpose remained at the company’s most senior cadre, and may yet result in criminal charges. Hewlett-Packard has admitted using private investigators to access phone records of board members to see who had been talking with journalists. Chairman Patricia Dunn stands accused of orchestrating this activity. Director Tom Perkins resigned in protest, calling for the chairman to go, and in September Dunn resigned.” The article suggests that boardroom political games and spats erupt frequently onto the business pages. Another recent
Boardroom politics is defined as a decision making by business elites and professionals but with important public consequences. According to Van Horn, Baumer & Gormley (2001) boardroom politics in the private decision making are literally made in corporate boardrooms; others are made at lower levels by corporate managers subject to constraints imposed by a board of directors. Boardroom politics are more hierarchical than cloakroom politics, more competitive than bureaucratic politics and more volatile than courtroom politics. Boardroom politics has become more visible and more controversial since the 1960s and still private (Van Horn,Baumer & Gormley 2001). Therefore boardroom politics does become controversial and continues to gain in the politic policy process. Its implementation is known both in public and private sectors that describes political process for the scope of conflict in a broader sense by examining the process to make comparisons by its use. The example from current events that demonstrates boardroom politics can be someone’s leaking to the press! An article from Christian and Timbers (2010 suggest that there is spying on in boardroom from colleagues at Hewlett Packard; leaked information to the press. According to Christian and Timbers (2010) “the exercise destroyed what little sense of common purpose remained at the company’s most senior cadre, and may yet result in criminal charges. Hewlett-Packard has admitted using private investigators to access phone records of board members to see who had been talking with journalists. Chairman Patricia Dunn stands accused of orchestrating this activity. Director Tom Perkins resigned in protest, calling for the chairman to go, and in September Dunn resigned.” The article suggests that boardroom political games and spats erupt frequently onto the business pages. Another recent